On 07/09/2014 12:58 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Alex Elder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -453,11 +453,7 @@ static int log_store(int facility, int level,
>> return msg->text_len;
>> }
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT
>> -int dmesg_restrict = 1;
>> -#else
>> -int dmesg_restrict;
>> -#endif
>> +int dmesg_restrict = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT);
>
> Doesn't this move dmesg_restrict from the bss to the data section
> in case CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT is not enabled, due
> to the explicit initialization to zero?
I honestly don't know. Is that even a well-defined behavior?
Couldn't the compiler, noting an explicit 0 initialization,
put it into BSS anyway?
In any case, does this distinction matter?
-Alex
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> [email protected]
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like
> that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
